FlawCheck Citator
Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10360996
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Wallace v. Bradley

No. 10360996 · Decided March 21, 2025
No. 10360996 · Ninth Circuit · 2025 · FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
March 21, 2025
Citation
No. 10360996
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DWAYNE CORY WALLACE, Jr., No. 23-3929 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00844-SRB--DMF Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* JODY BRADLEY, Assistant Warden at Saguaro Correctional Center; MICHAEL GAWLIK, Lieutenant, STG at Saguaro Correctional Center; JENNIFER BECHLER, Hawaii Contract Monitor at Saguaro Correctional Center; CHRISTOPHOR LOOMIS, Lieutenant, STG at Saguaro Correctional Center; HOWARD KOMORI; JEANETTE BALTERO, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 17, 2025** Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Dwayne Cory Wallace, Jr., a state prisoner housed in Arizona, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Wallace’s action because Wallace failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 837 (1994) (requirements for an Eighth Amendment violation in the prison context); Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1269 (9th Cir. 2009) (requirements for a First Amendment retaliation claim in the prison context). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 23-3929
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025 MOLLY C.
Key Points
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 21 2025 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Wallace v. Bradley in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on March 21, 2025.
Use the citation No. 10360996 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →